Neo Buddhists?

[Ensapa]

Have you encountered certain Buddhists that want authentic words from the Buddha himself and tend to reject works that were written by anyone who is not the Buddha like Nagajurna etc? They are obsessed over just studying the pure words of the Buddha and even within the Pali cannon they would only want to focus on certain  nikayas and say that the later ones are not authentic and dismisses Mahayana and Vajrayana entirely as later teachings that were not taught directly by the Buddha. They also reject completely that one should follow a teacher and they claim that all that is needed for enlightenment is in the Buddha's words.

What I dont understand is

1) why are they so stuck to wanting only the most 'authentic' teachings? words that came directly from the Buddha? If it worked for them, they would have been enlightened, but since they havent, shouldnt they get some help with that?

2) What makes them get so obsessed to the point where they have to exclude all other teachings and even not find a teacher and claim that the Dharma is their teacher?

I have met a few of these and it is kinda perplexing.

[Big Uncle]

In Mahayana Buddhism and treading the path of the Bodhisattva, there's a vow that one can take and that is never to abandon the Mahayana in favor of other sets of teachings. I think we basically cannot pick and choose the teachings based on chronology because none of the Buddha's words were ever recorded down in the first place.

The Hinayana Theravaden scriptures arose first through the efforts of the arhats who recalled the Buddha's words directly and recorded it down generations after the Buddha's parinirvana. The Mahayana scriptures on the other hand came later because it was hidden and kept for later generation of practitioners who had sufficient merit for it. The scriptures came later does not mean they were made up. They were real because the teachings adhered to the spirit of the Buddha in seeking full enlightenment and if one were to engaged in the practices, it would bear results.

[Ensapa]

In Mahayana Buddhism and treading the path of the Bodhisattva, there's a vow that one can take and that is never to abandon the Mahayana in favor of other sets of teachings. I think we basically cannot pick and choose the teachings based on chronology because none of the Buddha's words were ever recorded down in the first place.

The Hinayana Theravaden scriptures arose first through the efforts of the arhats who recalled the Buddha's words directly and recorded it down generations after the Buddha's parinirvana. The Mahayana scriptures on the other hand came later because it was hidden and kept for later generation of practitioners who had sufficient merit for it. The scriptures came later does not mean they were made up. They were real because the teachings adhered to the spirit of the Buddha in seeking full enlightenment and if one were to engaged in the practices, it would bear results.

Unfortunately, certain scholars these days have established certain teachings to be "original" and the rest to be of dubious origin. Take for example the Original Buddhist Society:

Objectives:   
    This Corporation are to restore the original teachings of the Buddha Sakyamuni, to establish the Sangha community who observes the original dharma and precepts, and to embody the community of Original Buddhism that reflects “accordance with the Sutras and precepts, respect for monks and nuns, and harmony among the seculars, equal rights for both genders, and secularism”.   
Basis:   
1   The belief of this Corporation is the historic human Buddha Sakyamuni.   
2   The thought of this Corporation is based upon the original dharma, mainly in the common Sutras of the seven categories, namely “Causation (Correlative Conditioning)”, “Noble Truths”, “Nutriment” , “Realm (Element)”, “Darkness (Aggregate)”, “Six Sense-bases”, and “the Path (including the Four Foundations of Mindfulness)”, which are in the Chinese translated Samyukta-?gama of Ananda lineage and in the Therav?din P?li Samyutta-Nik?ya of Upali lineage.

And their viewpoints with the the other traditions/lineages

In the process of analysis, many scriptures about the history of Indian Buddhism and the doctrines of various Buddhism Sects, within 500 years after the Buddha’s Parinibb?na, are important references. The Chinese Buddhist Canon has many scriptures of those Sects in that era, and can be used as comparison with the seven categories of the “Sutras”. This approach can help us to understand the development of the thoughts of sectarian Indian Buddhism.
Looking at the lineage history of the three modern Buddhist Schools:
1. The Tamraparniya sect of the Therav?da Vibhajjav?dins – the lineage from the Therav?da Vibhajjav?dins about 236 years after the Buddha’s Parinibb?na. This sect has developed the Bodhi Path containing traditional Buddhism, and the original Bodhisattva Path between 250 and 600 years after the Buddha’s Parinibb?na.
2. The Chinese Bodhisattva Path – the lineage from Indian sectarian Buddhism between 250 and 500 years after the Buddha’s Parinibb?na, and also the lineage from the new Bodhisattva Path developed by the “Prajnaparamita Sutras” that appeared between 500 and 600 years after the Buddha’s Parinibb?na.. This new Bodhisattva Path has three Schools, “Madhyamika”, “Yogacara”, and “Tathagata-garba”, and is different from the original Bodhisattva Path.
3. The Esoteric Bodhisattva Path – the lineage from the new Bodhisattva Path between 500 and 1000 years after the Buddha’s Parinibb?na, mixed with Hinduism and Tibetan animism beliefs.

  Speaking to the fact, all three Schools are sectarian Buddhism, and are different from the Buddha’s doctrines. The Buddha’s has entered Parinibb?na for more than 2500 years. We, as the Buddha’s disciples, should persistently practice to let the study and illustration of the original Buddhism shine again in the world in this century.

http://www.arahant-usa.org/English/index.html

Apparently this new school of thought thinks that the only original teachings are those from the Samyutta Nikaya and nowhere else. The question is, what led them to believe this? is it due to their own insecurities? or perhaps they had a grudge against Nagajurna as we can read here that the author/founder is quite against him and painted him to  be someone who split the sangha, and has almost little to no knowledge on tantra and made ignorant remarks against it, but make no further investigations to ascertain their own claims.

What is alarming is that there are a lot of "modern Buddhists" who do go with this line of thought. But we all know that this mindset is very far from enlightenment, but what drove them to this?

[RedLantern]

It's interesting thing that many of these questions about Buddhist practice.Buddhism is always expressed through the culture of time and place, and modern Buddhism is no exception.So trying to separate an "essence" from it's cultural trappings is very difficult,even assuming there was agreement on what the "essence"actually is. Different Buddhist traditions have their own interpretations and their own idea of what "essence" is.
Western Buddhism is radically improving dharma.Dharma does change but the experience are the same and goes back to the Buddha and earlier.The important thing is to become immersed in the path,find the middle way, become Enlightened.

[Ensapa]

It's interesting thing that many of these questions about Buddhist practice.Buddhism is always expressed through the culture of time and place, and modern Buddhism is no exception.So trying to separate an "essence" from it's cultural trappings is very difficult,even assuming there was agreement on what the "essence"actually is. Different Buddhist traditions have their own interpretations and their own idea of what "essence" is.
Western Buddhism is radically improving dharma.Dharma does change but the experience are the same and goes back to the Buddha and earlier.The important thing is to become immersed in the path,find the middle way, become Enlightened.

Some people just dont seem to understand that even if the words are not directly from the Buddha they can still benefit when applied and that they will still help in the development of wisdom and compassion and the reason why they refuse to understand is  because they're too afraid of having their views challenged. It's a sad thing actually that is happening around as they do not realize what they are doing is actually reinforcing their ego and not practicing the Dharma.

[yontenjamyang]

My opinion is that they that the stand that the only anti-biotic is the penicillin. Other anti-biotics just isn't the original.
The Buddha has given 84,000 Dharma or teachings for diverse beings to suit each types of mind. The later schools is still authentic Buddhist schools for they teach authentic Dharma. We can check it from the results of the practitioners.

To say, only the "original" teachings of the Buddha is the Buddha's teaching is a paradox because:

1) The Buddha's teaching was never recorded directly "live" but were recorded only after his passing. So how sure are we that it is the original. By definition, none is.
2) To equate the Dharma as only coming from the Buddha Shakyamuni is to deny His word itself, as the Buddha taught that he did not invent the teaching but he merely taught the "Truth". There were other Buddhas before him and there will be Buddhas after him. The whole objective of His teaching is to become a Buddha. So if the teaching is authentic, surely there will be others who will be enlightened like Nagarjuna. To deny this is to deny the Buddha "original" teachings itself.
3) If we were to accept the "original" teachings then we must not underestimate the Buddha himself. He is skillful and his methods are still unfolding even now.

So to deny and reject later teachings as not authentic or "original" contradicts the teaching itself.